questioning the religious foundations of America

My American neighbors, tell me if what this man says is true:

youtube.com/watch?v=iP4dEV2YKtk

At about 2:20 he says:

I knew about these slogans (“one nation under God”, “in God we trust”, etc.) and assumed they reflected a Christian orientation of the founders of the United States, but this video casts doubt on that (which is not at all surprising to me). Perhaps if I was American, I would be more likely to know this. Is this known to most Americans?

Is it even true? Far be it for me to believe everything I see on youtube, but it sure makes a lot of sense out of what I know about the principles and the people behind the founding of America.

I know about it My parents have some old money that prove it. I can’t tell you if most know it. But most really would not care. As long as the money pays the bills it can say whatever the gov’t wants it to say.

Christianity took over the US quite awhile back. In fact the Texas constitution declares that in order to run for office you must believe in God. It does not say out and out the Christian God but, it leaves little room for doubt.

I am always reminded of the Protestant /Catholic war in Ireland. The real reasons for the war beginning have been lost and forgotten over myths and legends. Ask either side and the average person will not competely understand why it all started.

The same will happen here eventually, its been building up.

It is a big deal when people start using these slogans as evidence that the founding fathers were Christian or that they founded America on Christian values. To say that makes it seem justified to call atheists and non-believers unpatriotic.

There is firm proof of the founding fathers intentions.
It is a treaty signed in 1797 and is quite clear in its
point about the religious foundations of america.
The key paragraph is 11.
As of 1797 many, many of the founding fathers were still alive which
includes the president and vice president and several cabinet post.


Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.


Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.

Kropotkin

Then I guess I am unpatriotic.

The constitution is the document that is considered living, not the money. The money is for trade only, not laws. If the constitution is ammended to make Atheism and religions other than Christianity illegal, then civil war will occur. Until then most folks just want to pay the bills, it can be purple with a picture of the cookie monster on it for all folks really care. As long as the gov’t says its legal tender, that is all that is really important. There are those that fight to change the tender but, they are in the same boat, most do not really care. I know I do not. I will save the fight for the constitution.

Yes it’s all true, and worse. When Eisenhower signed the bill adding “under God” to the pledge, he said: “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

Most Americans also don’t know that it was written and impressed on our school children following the Civil War in large part to keep the rebels in line.

I further protest pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place, rather than swearing to defend the Constitution as the military and high federal officials do (most of the latter with their fingers crossed). You may well ask, why we don’t have our school children pledge allegiance to the Constitution? I’ll tell you. Because then we’d have to explain it to the little buggers and answer 2nd grader’s questions about why we don’t do what the Constitution says anymore.

It wasn’t just Christian populism that drove the inclusion of Christian themes in our currency and elsewhere, but also anti-communism. America had to take a stand against the Ruskies and Godless Communism. You aren’t some kinda red, are ya? 'Cause if ya are, ya might have to get blacklisted. Catch my drift?

Kris,

I appreciate where you’re coming from, but I still think making sure the public is informed about the source and intent of these slogans, whether on money or elsewhere, is important. Like I said, they’re being used to portray a false image of what America stems from and what it still stands for today.

Xunzian,

Anti-communism may have been a motive for propagating Christian values, maybe even the motive, but why Christianity? Why not democracy? Why not capitalism? Why not freedom?

A variety of reasons. One of them is that Christianity is populist and so is Communism, so it allows ‘like’ to combat ‘like’. Plus in the American imagination, those elements are combined. Our long Protestant heritage (coupled with a hefty dose of Calvinism) makes Christianity and Capitalism bedfellows, indeed, expressions of the same phenomenon. We can argue the thelogical groundings of that relationship but I don’t think it can be argued that it isn’t there. Democracy and capitalism have likewise been conflated in the American imagination (so when people spoke about ‘freedom’ it would necessarily demand both democracy and capitalism) but this was a little trickier in terms of rhetoric since Communists also stressed democracy as the basis of their actions and ideals. But what you have in the popular imagination is:

Christianity = Capitalism

Capitalism = Democracy

Democracy = Capitalism

So with a little handwaving, the three entities became the same thing. You’ll note none of them are dealt with in isolation when it comes to cold-war rhetoric.

Gib I agree, but it is a fruitless task. This is not just true in this country but, in most countries. Folks just want to pay bills raise kids and try to have a decent day all in a 24 hour period 8 of which might be spent alseep. Most folks no matter what country they live in have only the barest interest in history, the whys the wheres whats and hows. That is for the leaders to worry about. It sounds depressing but, learning things like this,to most folks just is not a priority, its too much work that does not pay bills. It would be great to expect more from the human population but, its not going to happen soon.

The founders were members of an elite aristocracy who viewed the American Revolution from a secular prespective. They were rationalists inspired by Enlightment philosophers like Locke. They were deists rather than orthodox Christians. Their goals were pragmatic. The Declaration of Independence appeals to the Enlightenment ideals of independence and equality under the auspices of the deist “nature’s God.”

God wasn’t mention in the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment formally separated religion from the state. Faith was meant to be voluntary, uncoerced and private. Establishment of a single official national religion like they had in Europe would have allienated those members of the thirteen states where majorities belonged to other denominations. Unity demanded that the U.S. be secular and tolerant at its inception.

The founding fathers (in all forms that word can be used) were largely Christian, however, they would never have made such slogans.

You have to remember that they were attempting to revolt against a country where Church and State were linked.
They would not have interest in repeating what they saw as a principle miss-use of power control of people.

Generally speaking, they saw religion as personally useful and powerfully convincing, but in the hands of a state (literal meaning) it was too powerful of a control system.


Unfortunately, that reality was too much of a hard thing to resist in later years for multiple reasons.

For instance, the currency was labeled “in God we trust” in 1864 because that was the push to the end of the Civil War.
A large part of the war centered around currency control; of which each side had their own new currency they were trying to unite and push forward.

Placing that statement on the money of the Union was a two-fold instance of both strategically appealing to the religious movement of the people and also doubling to make a statement of trust in the success of the Union in the time of upheaval.

It states that the Union is willing to place trust in God, and is willing to have faith that the outcome will be good for the Union; that their prosperity will prevail.
Placing it on the money is putting it in the most powerful weapon of the Civil War; money.

(started under Lincoln, but was officially adopted as a national slogan under Eisenhower, even though it was already on the money.)


Regarding “under God”, that wasn’t added in 1892, that was added by Eisenhower in 195…4? (I think that’s right).
He attended what’s called, “Lincoln Sunday” (a tradition of Presidents) at a church where the pastor tailored an entire sermon to convincing the president to add the phrase to the pledge.
The pastor had no affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, who were not looked highly upon in the courts for their attempts (the constantly petitioned bills regarding the matter…the US gov representatives were pretty tired of hearing it).

This decision was made at the same time frame that Eisenhower was campaigning against the segregated school system and was starting his campaign for the civil rights movement a few years later.
He would, no doubt, relate to Lincoln’s appeal to religion and would have heard this in the sermon (as the sermon was on the Gettysburg Address) and would have attached to it easily.

So the common tie between these two concepts are Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.

One would not be amiss by suggesting that these two men are responsible for the large angle of Christianity upon American “branding”.
They are by no means exclusive, but they are the larger of the players.

That’s probably true, but we should always keep in mind that their religious orientation played absolutely no part in the foundations of the nation they were building. They also so happened to be white - doesn’t mean America was founded on white supremacy.

What you are always plays a part in what you do and what you create.
White supremecy? Blacks,browns reds yellows and to an unusual extent Irish and lets not forget the women ,were not considered suitable US voting citizen material, good enough for servants but, not good enough to participate.

Sure they were humans but, they were mere children even when adults , so they were told what to do and think and when these children disobeyed, they were suitably punished, death , whippings beatings prison… all because they had the audacity to behave or think like a white US male.

Religion, Wholly crap just look at the constitution and its ammendments, it is so filled with Chritian Ethics and Morals it is lopsided. it may not read Christian but, its bases are.

What you are always plays a part wether you think it does or not.

Are you saying America was founded on Christian values?

As for the white supremacy thing - did it really say in the constitution, or any of the founding documents of the US, that these groups weren’t allowed to vote, or that they had less rights than white adult males? It’s an honest question; I’m not American so I wouldn’t know. Or were these violations of the constitution due to limited means by which to enforce it? Remember that these groups were able to fight for their rights because they could fall back on the constitution. I certainly would be surprised to find the founding fathers approving of these abuses.

Consider that some of the originators/signers of the constitution had slaves, were all white males, the intent is fairly clear. If otherwise, slavery would not have been permitted. People had to fight the gov’t and appeal to the words of the constitution because it is a living document and so intent can change.
All men are created equal…not all men and women, not all humans but, all men are created equal. Why choose such a word if there is no prejudice?

The word ‘men’ is often used to denote mankind, not males.

But you can’t be serious. You can’t mean to say that America was founded on the principle that white Christian males have more rights than all other groups. I always thought the American ideal stemmed from the philosophies of freedom and fair government that were popular during the Enlightenment are. If you’re right, boy was I wrong, and I drop any respect I may have had for the American way of life.

:laughing: :laughing: gib, when the constitution was written it was declared a living document. Much ambiguity was written into it so that generations can interpret the words as needed to suit their time. What was suitable for them they understood would not be suitable for us. What their intent was would not be our intent. Man is now human,it was not so back then. But the fact that it is a living document allows for needed changing interpretations. We protect the constitution because it is a living document, not a founding father’s document nor because it was the first gov’t document, nor because it was the bases for our gov’t. We protect it because it protects us the living with its living.

Fair enough, but now let’s bring this back to the subject matter. What does this say about what America stands for today. Are they generally right when they say that to be an atheist is to be unpatriotic? Or is it still true that America stands for the right to choose one’s own religious affiliation, for freedom of expression regardless of whether you dislike what’s being expressed, for the persuit of truth, etc., etc., etc.?

I don’t think I’m wrong in assuming that America did stand for these things at some point. If the constitution is a living document - meaning it can change - then the question is: has it changed from these standards? Has it become more ‘Christian’? Has it adapted to Christian values to such an extent that it is now unpatriotic not to believe in God?

Well, religious extremists would say it unpatriotic, but, the average US Christian would look at you like you were crazy if you suggested something like that.

The average US person wants their freedom and understands that to have their freedom, others must have theirs. Its only certain groups that have money backing them that cause the hubbub. If you have money you can purchase airtime and preach all you want. But that does not make it true. For instance when the Presidents make state of the Union announcements, more then half the folks take that time as a bathroom break, a chance to fix a snack or call someone on the phone. US folks are just folks that want to be able to live life as comfortably as possible with as little strife as possible. no different then anyone else. Our leaders just make us look like crap at times. We are not our leaders. Our system is not designed to pick the best leaders just, the wealthiest ones.